from the going,-going,-gone dept

Back in March, we reported on the growing rejection of corporate sovereignty in TAFTA/TTIP, even by the German government. Since then, criticism of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which puts corporations above nations, has become even louder and more widespread. Some significant manifestations of that took place during a plenary session of the newly-elected European Parliament, where Karel De Gucht, the commissioner leading the negotiations for the EU, made a brief statement on TAFTA/TTIP. Here's how one member of the European Parliament (MEP) responded, as reported by The Parliament magazine:

During Tuesday's plenary session GUE/NGL deputy Helmut Scholz addressed De Gucht, saying, "You carried out a public consultation on the inclusion of an investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause which received over 115,000 responses.

"Citizens don't want ISDS; neither in TTIP nor in the agreement with Canada," the German deputy argued.

The Socialists were proud to be at the birth of TTIP, and we do not want to be its assassins, and I want to tell the Commission clearly now, though, that if we have to be, we will be. And that's why we want the Commission to listen carefully to our concerns.

German Socialist Bernd Lange, who said procedural rules would stop [right-wing MEP] Le Pen grandstanding or using sessions for publicity, also warned that an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism should be dropped from TTIP. If it wasn't, he said, the Parliament’s next resolution on TTIP could be negative.

As Commission President, I will also be very clear that I will not sacrifice Europe's safety, health, social and data protection standards or our cultural diversity on the altar of free trade. Notably, the safety of the food we eat and the protection of Europeans' personal data will be non-negotiable for me as Commission President. Nor will I accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes. The rule of law and the principle of equality before the law must also apply in this context.

Given this resistance to corporate sovereignty at the highest levels of the European Commission and European Parliament, it's hard to see how De Gucht can continue to push for it in his negotiations with the US. After all, once TAFTA/TTIP is agreed, the European Parliament will have a yes/no vote, and will be unable to modify it. That means the only way to block ISDS is to reject the whole deal -- just as it happened with ACTA for the same reason.

from the satire-for-hire dept

There's been plenty of talk about the influence of money in politics -- and we've certainly covered ambitious projects like Larry Lessig's MayDay SuperPAC a few times. However, down in Kentucky, a group called Represent.us is taking a different -- and potentially more effective -- approach to making people aware of the nefarious impact of money in politics. They've organized a satirical campaign for the Kentucky Senate by Gil Fulbright -- the most Honest Politician in Kentucky. Fulbright, of course, is played by an actor (Frank Ridley), but does a pretty good impression of a politician. To get a sense of his level of honesty, check out this campaign ad:

If you can't watch it, here's the opening transcript:

Hi! I'm Gil Fulbright. The people who run my campaign made this commercial and I'm in it. This campaign? It's not about me. It's about crafting a version of me that appeals to you. A version that visits random work sites with paid actors, pointing at things. A version of me that doesn't find old people loathsome or pointless. Has a conventionally attractive, yet curiously still, family. Listening to my constituents, legislating? These are things I don't do. What I do is spend about 70% of my time raising funds for re-election....

It goes on in that style and is pretty amusing. He's got some other commercials too, such as one for net neutrality and one for health care, both with the tagline: "I'm Gil Fulbright: for the right price, I'll approve any message."

Represent.us put together an IndieGoGo campaign to help fund their plan to insert Fulbright (satirically) into the high profile (and very expensive) Kentucky Senatorial race. He's obviously not running for real, but the idea is to piggyback on the spotlight on the Kentucky race between Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes, which is expected to cost $100 million (nearly all of it from out of state). As Represent.us explains how they'll make use of Fulbright's "campaign":

He'll crash campaign events, run “honest political ads” on TV and the radio, and do whatever it takes to get the whole country talking about money in politics corruption. We’re renting a campaign bus, slapping Gil’s beautiful face on it, and hitting the campaign trail to bring some much-needed honesty to one of the most expensive Senate campaigns in American history.

The IndieGoGo campaign quickly raised its targeted $20,000 (needed for a campaign bus), and is rapidly approaching the $30,000 for billboards. The team is hoping for even more to put some of their ads on TV as well. Obviously, this alone isn't going to move the needle on the question of money in politics, but greater attention from a variety of different angles can only help raise awareness.

from the dangerous dept

Politicians are supposed to represent the will of the public. It rarely works that way in practice, but the strongest demonstration of that may be what's happening in the UK with this new data retention bill. We wrote about it earlier, but MP Tom Watson has more details on how this is an "erosion of political trust," in which leaders of multiple parties in Parliament worked together to do a deal that clearly goes against the will of the public, and then sought to shove it through with no debate at all.

As Watson notes, there's no reason to nitpick about what's in the draft bill, because it's basically guaranteed to become law at this point:

The bill was published in draft form a few hours ago. It's pointless attempting to scrutinise it because, thanks to the secret deal, we know it will be law by the end of next week.

However, he notes that the bill clearly expands surveillance of the public, in direct contrast to what the EU Court of Justice ruling, which "prompted" this new law, said:

The judgment said the previous legislation was not "necessary and proportionate". The draft bill does use these words, but it's barely a nod to the court's requirements. The judgment said clearly that the mass retention of the data of every citizen was not proportionate. This legislation ignores this, allowing its retention for 12 months.

The bill says that new regulations may be passed to restrict the use of retention notices, but these are not set out. And these new restrictions won't be passed by all parliamentarians but as statutory instruments through small committees of a select few MPs.

The really damning point is that this is just a bunch of political elites agreeing to spy on the public... because they can:

While the Lib Dems can spin as much as they like that this isn't the draft communications data bill, this is clearly a light version of it which ignores the ruling of a court on fundamental rights and extends surveillance powers overseas. The party spent the day crowing about the concessions granted to civil liberties groups such as Don't Spy on Us, but the concessions aren't even in the bill. We have to trust this government to deliver these concessions. Is this a game we should be willing to play?

Yet the details are irrelevant. A secret deal between elites has removed the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny and engagement with civic society. The bill, warts and all, will be law next week. Theresa May has in the past stood strongly for the idea of policing by consent. What a shame she doesn't think the same principles apply to our security services.

The party leaders will get their way next week, but the price will be further erosion of the authority of our political institutions. Today parliament feels a little further away from our citizens.

Larry Lessig has long pointed out that when governments act this way, the public trusts them less and less, and their actual mandate to govern is made much less powerful. Of course, when they can snoop on all of your communications, what do they care?

Was Blog for Arizona out of line for outing John Huppenthal as an anonymous commenter, as Mr. Geigner suggests in his recent post?

In this specific case, absolutely not. Among other things, Huppenthal invited us to publish his comments; he was so careless that his identity could be ascertained from the comments themselves, with no reference to the IP addresses we had, and he was posting from a government agency, which would be required to divulge the sites he visited if asked.

Let's put all that aside and approach the more fundamental question: How secure should a John Huppenthal be in his anonymity? He cited the Founding Fathers, several of who wrote anonymously when penning the Federalist Papers.

But the issue here is not the right to anonymous speech. Nobody disputes that right. The issue is whether there is a right to anonymous speech with zero risk of being exposed, even if the speaker is a public figure.

In our judicial system, very few rights are absolute. Why? Because there are competing interests.

For example, public figures do not receive the same level of protection from defamatory statements as ordinary citizens do. If I publish an unfavorable statement against Joe Sixpack, Joe only need show the statement was false in a suit for defamation. But if I make the same statement about an elected official, he has to show not only that the statement was false, but that I made it with reckless disregard for the truth. Why the difference? Because of the competing interest. As a society we don't want people with information about public figures to be overly fearful of coming forward.

If we were to attempt absolute protection of the anonymity of public figures in their online comments, we necessarily would have to encroach upon the freedom of the press and the associated protection of confidentiality of sources. Suppose Blog for Arizona did not expose Huppenthal directly, but instead had one of our writers speak off the record to a reporter, who then called Huppenthal out based on a confidential source and asked Huppenthal to request that Blog for Arizona publicize all its information. Huppenthal would have no practical choice but to comply, or just fess up. So, unless we're willing to encroach upon the freedom of the press, the protection of anonymous commenters could not be complete to the degree Mr. Geigner desires.

Now, consider the issue from the perspective of the blogger. I have knowledge that an elected official who is up for re-election, John Huppenthal, is a racist who believes the Holocaust was more the work of Darwin than of Hitler. Should I have no ability to let the public know what Huppenthal is all about? Perhaps, but only if Blog for Arizona and I had guaranteed Mr. Huppenthal that his anonymity would be protected. Otherwise, imposing some sort of legal gag order on bloggers does not seem the way to go.

The bottom line: We don't need to make it any easier for creeps like John Huppenthal to go undetected. A risk of detection is inherent in anonymous speech. Whatever chilling effect arises from the outing of a Huppenthal, a chilling effect that I submit is minor or non-existent, is outweighed by the value to the public of the outing.

from the don't-let-cynicism-get-in-the-way dept

Okay, we've written about Larry Lessig's Mayday PAC a bunch of times already, including when it launched, when it hit its first target of $1 million (which was then matched by donors for another $1 million), and again when the second round launched with a goal of raising $5 million (again to be matched with another $5 million) by July 4th.

Guess what? Today is July 4th, and the campaign ends today.

And you have a chance to help determine if it meets that $5 million goal or not. While there's been a big last minute push from a variety of places, as I write this, the campaign is still significantly short of its target goal. There is a very real chance that it won't reach the $5 million. And that would be unfortunate. So, today is basically a big chance for you to make a statement about trying to limit the impact of money in politics.

One note on cynicism: pretty much every time we've written about this, the comments have been filled with people cynically trashing the idea either based on the argument that it's impossible to get rid of the influence of money in politics or because Lessig hasn't taken a specific issue on a particular pet issue (term limits is one that comes up often enough). Personally, I find this disingenuous and disappointing. It seems like people are actively looking for ways to keep the status quo, rather than to represent any real challenge to it at all. This kind of attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy that only keeps things the way they are.

No one knows for sure if Lessig's plans will have any real impact, but I know of no one who has put as much time, thought and effort into tackling the problem of the corrupting influence of money in politics. For every simplistic point that someone has for why this plan or that plan won't work, Lessig has a detailed, fact-based or data-based answer. This isn't just some randomly idealistic person with a dream. This is someone who has dedicated a huge chunk of his life and intellectual resources towards really tackling the problem in a realistic and doable way. Even if I don't know all of the details, if there's one person who can actively make a difference, who has thought through the pros and cons of basically every possible approach, it's Larry Lessig.

Go ahead and be cynical, if you must. But think about what that cynicism leads to in the end. Even if the MAYDAY PAC fails, isn't it better that they have a chance to succeed, rather than killing it off from the start so you can sound smart about how you knew it wouldn't work?

from the because-that's-how-politics-work dept

Hillary Clinton is, of course, making her big Presidential campaign book tour, commenting on all sorts of big issues, as she gears up for the real campaign. It's causing some controversy, of course, including her wacky, angry response to Fresh Air host Terry Gross simply asking if she had changed her opinion on gay marriage (Clinton refused to directly answer the question, and when Gross called her on that, Clinton accused her of trying to claim she changed her opinion for political reasons, even though that was pretty clearly not Gross' intent). However, in that same interview, Clinton also took some ridiculous and uninformed shots at Ed Snowden. After Gross pointed out that Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, had called Snowden an "imperfect messenger" but also suggesting that perhaps the national security state has gone too far, Hillary said:

Well, I usually agree with my husband, but let me say on this point that there were many ways to start this conversation. And in fact, the conversation was starting. Members of Congress - a few notable examples like Senator Wyden and Senator Udall and others - were beginning to raise issues that it was time for us to take a hard look at all of the laws that have been passed and how they were implemented since 9/11.

The president was addressing this. In fact, he had given a speech that basically made that point shortly before these disclosures were made. And of course, I think it's imperative that in our political system, in our society at large, we have these debates. So I welcome the conversation. But I think that he was not only an imperfect messenger, but he was a messenger who could have chosen other ways to raise the very specific issues about the impact on Americans. But that's not all he did.

Of course, this is misleading to wrong. Lots of defenders of the President on surveillance like to point to his speech at the National Defense University a couple weeks before the first Snowden revelation, but that speech did not address the issues now being discussed at all. It mostly focuses on fighting overseas, and actually (a few times) praises the work of the intelligence community and how useful that's been. That was not starting any sort of real debate. As for Wyden and Udall -- they'd been making these points for years and having them virtually ignored by most, in both the press and among their colleagues (we wrote about it, but we don't count).

There were other ways that Mr. Snowden could have expressed his concerns, by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans' calls and emails. I think everyone would have applauded that because it would have added to the debate that was already started. Instead, he left the country - first to China, then to Russia - taking with him a huge amount of information about how we track the Chinese military's investments and testing of military equipment, how we monitor the communications between al-Qaida operatives. Just two examples.

Except, of course, the failure of Wyden and Udall's claims to get any attention made it quite clear that reaching out to Senators wouldn't help. And he did reach out to journalists. But, of course, Clinton's former boss has also been using the Espionage Act against leakers and journalists at an astounding rate. If Obama hadn't been doing so, perhaps Snowden would have been more comfortable just sharing a few documents. However, knowing that there was a good chance he was about to disappear for life, it makes sense that Snowden handed over the whole pile of documents to Greenwald and Poitras. And, yes, this is one of the consequences of Obama's use of the Espionage Act. It encourages leakers to leak big while they can.

If Clinton honestly thinks everyone would have "applauded... because it would have added to the debate," she is either clueless about how people have responded to various similar (less explosive) leaks, or trying to rewrite history in her favor.

And the whole "go to China and Russia" bit is tired, old and misleading. As is the suggestion that he took any of that info to Russia. That's been debunked in the past, no need to do so again.

"Laws that were passed after 9/11 gave the executive very broad authority ... what has happened is that people have said, OK, the emergency is over and we want to get back to regular order," she said.

"It's a really difficult balancing act, but you are absolutely right that we need to make some changes to secure that constitutional right to privacy that Americans are due."

Wait, what? If it weren't for Snowden, we wouldn't even be having the debate about the PATRIOT Act, and there wouldn't be a discussion about "the emergency is over." Hell, to hear Keith Alexander talk about it, the "threat" is bigger now than ever before. Because fear is the key.

Separately, notice that Clinton doesn't actually back any real proposal for reform, but just sorta dances around the idea that maybe reform is good. It's the ultimate in political nothingness. Stake out a bunch of vague positions without anything concrete that can come back to haunt you later, and do it all while bizarrely attacking the guy who made the issue an issue in the first place. And people wonder why the public is so cynical about politicians.

from the as-if-we-didn't-know-that dept

We've talked plenty of times about what a complete joke the USTR's Special 301 report is. It's supposedly a "listing" of "naughty" countries who don't protect intellectual property enough for the US's tastes. However, as we've noted, there is no methodology behind it: a bunch of industry lobbyists submit lists of what countries they don't like to the USTR, the USTR talks to various diplomats, basically rewrites the list to "shame" certain countries, and releases the list. Canada, which has been put on the list for years despite having stricter copyright laws than the US, has officially stated that it simply does not accept the Special 301 findings as legitimate. Chile did the same thing a year ago. As I've mentioned before, at a conference a few years ago, I even saw the then head of the US Copyright Office mock the Special 301 report as a widely recognized joke.

Unfortunately, however, for countries who are heavily reliant on good relations with the United States, being on "the naughty" list is often an effective way to force them to jump through hoops to make Big Pharma or Hollywood happy. As we've discussed, Spain has been pressured into changing its copyright laws via the 301 list multiple times.

George Washington PhD student Gabriel Michael has decided to dig deep into the Special 301 Report and its history to determine if there's any point to it at all, and his initial results suggest that the process is even more of a joke than initially suspected. He notes that there's no real "enforcement" mechanism (at least not one that the US seems willing to use). He also notes that the US is incredibly hypocritical about it. While the Special 301 report mostly complains that other countries don't have enough intellectual property protection, at other times it goes the other way, like when it's the kind of IP that the US government doesn't like (geographical indicators or GI).

...by any reasonably objective standard, the European Union offers very high levels of IP protection. Yet as recently as 2006, Special 301 listed the European Union on its watch list, citing “concerns” about the EU’s geographical indication (GI) regime. Given that GIs are a form of intellectual property, USTR essentially placed the EU on its watch list for offering too much IP—or, if you prefer, the wrong kind of IP. Interestingly, this is a tacit admission by the U.S. that at least some kinds of IP can act as trade barriers.

In researching the effectiveness of the Special 301, Michael notes that supporters of the effort point to a study done in the International Trade Journal called "Special 301 and Royalty Receipts from U.S. Trade Partners" by David Riker, which argued that the Special 301 is effective, because there's a pretty big increase ($5.4 billion annually) in US royalty receipts from countries after being placed on the list. Michael sets out to replicate Riker's results and discovers very, very different results, in part because Riker made some notable errors (claiming Hong Kong was on the priority list, when it wasn't). Riker also only looked at some of the countries in the Special 301 Report. Michael looked at what happened when you viewed all of them, and he also had two more years of data to research. In the end, Michael finds that Riker's conclusions are simply not supported by the data.

To summarize, while I was able to replicate Riker’s results, simply including additional years of data causes his findings of significance to disappear. Likewise, even in his original dataset and models, if Watch List designations are included, the findings of significance disappear.

Ultimately, these results lead me to conclude that Riker’s 2012 article is both theoretically and empirically flawed. It cannot support the conclusion that Special 301 designations are correlated with increased IP royalties from designated countries in subsequent years.

In another post, Michael points out the obvious: the Special 301 list is never actually about intellectual property protections, but about political considerations. He notes that countries that are considered to have stronger IP protection (using the Park-Ginarte Index) are often listed on the Special 301 Report, while others with less protection are not. He even looks at the average of countries on the list and off, and finds that those on the list have higher protection than those off the list:

Given that, Michael looked at the leaked Wikileaks State Department cables, where there are a bunch discussing the Special 301, and quickly notes that it's pretty clear that political considerations were much more important than actual concerns about intellectual property conditions. In short, the Special 301 is just a way to diplomatically slap a country with whom we're having other political issues, in order to give the US leverage on some political point. He quotes State Department cables concerning Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia and Norway showing how it's much more about politics.

At some point, it needs to be asked why we have the Special 301 setup at all. It seems designed mainly to piss off other countries, while making Hollywood and Big Pharma feel good. It doesn't seem to do anything beneficial at all.

The report, "A Crisis of Accountability", has been published by the Privacy Surgeon and is based on collaboration with expert contributors from eighteen countries. The analysis determined that a large majority of governments have not responded in any "tangible, measurable way" to the disclosures that began in June 2013.

The report notes that while there has been a notable volume of "activity" in the form of diplomatic representations, parliamentary inquiries, media coverage, campaign strategies, draft legislation and industry initiatives, there has -- at the global level -- been an insignificant number of tangible reforms adopted to address the concerns raised by the disclosures. Two thirds of legal professionals and technology experts from 29 countries surveyed for the report said that they could recall no tangible measure taken by government.

However, there is some good news:

Despite this inactivity, the Snowden disclosures have triggered a noticeable shift in thinking across the world toward increased awareness of the importance of accountability, transparency and the rule of law with regard to both the activities of security agencies and the value of privacy. This shift -- in many parts of the world -- has empowered civil society, created a resurgence of interest in legal protections and sensitised media to key issues that have hitherto escaped public scrutiny at any substantial level.

Against this dismal background, the US emerges as one of the brighter spots (which should tell you how dire it is elsewhere):

The Snowden disclosures were met with a broad-based outpouring of outrage in the United States, with the criticism focused mostly on the privacy rights of US citizens. Media coverage was generally highly critical, with national media outlets such as the Washington Post, New York Times, ProPublica and Mother Jones publishing some of the disclosed documents. The disclosures also triggered numerous protests and grassroots campaigns, at least 6 lawsuits aimed at stopping NSA mass surveillance and several legislative proposals aimed at modifying NSA surveillance. The disclosures of the NSA's domestic spying programs, particularly the telephone call detail records collection program, have started a national conversation on both domestic and foreign surveillance policies. However, thus far, none of the surveillance reforms have been aimed at stopping the bulk collection of communications of non-US persons.

That last point is important: in all the moves to reform surveillance of Americans, however halting, little is being done to increase respect for the rights of law-abiding citizens outside the US -- who still form the vast majority of the world's population.
By contrast with the US, its main partner-in-surveillance, the UK, comes out of the report pretty badly:

Despite facing significant pressure in the wake of the Snowden revelations -- one of the largest leaks of classified material in history that revealed the secret mass surveillance apparatus run by GCHQ - the [UK] Government has responded with silence, obfuscation and secrecy.

Although rather depressing at times, the new report represents a valuable source of expert opinion from around the globe, with a wealth of useful references. It also offers a starting point for further action:

The data in this report may help indicate some other important pathways to future action for reform. One of the most significant of these relates to
interactivity between different strands of the reform community. Civil society and the tech community have not adequately adapted to the challenges raised by the Snowden revelations. For example, the interface and the communications between policy reform (e.g. efforts to create greater accountability measures, privacy regulations) and technical privacy solutions (e.g. designing stronger embedded security) are worryingly inconsistent and patchy. Few channels of communication and information exchange exist between these disparate communities.

Let's hope a similar study in twelve months' time will be able to report on progress on these and other approaches to reining in the blanket global surveillance revealed by Snowden a year ago.

from the every-little-thing dept

The DC political world was completely shocked last night as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary against a relatively unknown and completely underfunded challenger named David Brat. His Wikipedia page was set up only yesterday and initially had just two sentences, before the primary victory, leading people to suddenly start filling in more information. Just hours before the victory, the Washington Post had written: "the question... is how large Cantor’s margin of victory will be." Not surprisingly, the Post has now completely erased all traces of its Dewey Defeats Truman article, replacing it with one about Cantor's loss. As the political press tends to do, this morning everyone's digging for the "reasons" behind this unprecedented loss (no majority leader has ever lost a primary apparently) -- though almost all of the analysis is meaningless. Searching for a larger message in all of this is just silly -- as there are plenty of counter-examples. Whether it was about "the tea party," "immigration," "bipartisanship," "fed up with DC" or whatever... it doesn't matter. Politics can sometimes be a bit more complicated and nuanced than the single narrative.

But, on issues of importance around here, it's worth noting that Cantor's loss could be bad news for the NSA in a big way. Cantor was a key part of the House leadership that was instrumental in supporting the NSA and blocking any meaningful attempts at reform. Rather than looking into what the NSA was doing, Cantor wanted to lead an investigation into Ed Snowden. It is believed that Cantor was also a key part of the effort last year to make sure that the Amash Amendment failed.

Dave believes that the Constitution does not need to be compromised for matters of national security. He supports the end of bulk phone and email data collection by the NSA, IRS, or any other branch of government.

While some are trying to spin Brat's victory as a vote against the NSA, that seems unlikely (and again, seems to be people spinning this story to their own particular narrative). It appears that Cantor's loss (and, rest assured, this was much more a Cantor loss than a Brat win) was for many reasons, and it seems likely that the NSA was pretty far down the list. Obviously, assuming Brat goes on to win in the fall (now very likely), as a freshman Representative, he won't be able to do all that much. But just the fact that a very powerful ally of the NSA has lost to someone critical of the NSA is helpful in pushing back on the NSA's control over Congress.

Of course, there is one caveat in all of this. While Cantor cannot appear on the ballot (such as, by running as an independent) in the fall election, thanks to Virginia's sore loser law, he could potentially mount a write-in campaign. And, also, while the Democratic contender in the fall is considered to have absolutely no chance against any Republican listed, it is worth remembering that people also said Brat had no chance against Cantor. Either way, even if this wasn't a referendum on the NSA, it could be bad news for the NSA in losing one of its most powerful allies.

from the because-of-course-they-didn't dept

All the way back in 2008, we wrote about an increasingly common practice among slimy DC lobbyists to "sign up" clueless organizations to be used as astroturfing figureheads. For example, it seemed odd that corn farmers were suddenly interested in internet ad rates. The original article, by Declan McCullagh, included the money quote from an anonymous person involved in those kinds of astroturfing schemes:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

This seems to be standard practice for the big broadband companies. We highlighted how AT&T got "The Latino Coalition" to speak up in favor of their attempted (and eventually failed) merger with T-Mobile. Meanwhile, Comcast recently got the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to come out in favor of Comcast buying Time Warner Cable. And, of course, the dirty secret in all of this is that the way this works is the big companies toss a bunch of money at these organizations to get them to "support" whatever positions the companies want them to support. For example, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce received $320,000 from Comcast.

We recently wrote about the latest round of astroturfing groups that the broadband players were supporting, and who were out arguing in force against net neutrality. Lee Fang, at Vice, who wrote the original report that was based on now has a followup, talking about how many of the organizations listed as "members" of the astroturf group "Broadband for America" claim they have no idea what that is and did not choose to sign up.

Bob Calvert, the host of TalkingWithHeroes.com, a radio program listed as a Broadband for American member, told us that he is not familiar with the net neutrality debate. "My program is a non-political program supporting our men and women who serve and who have served our country and their families," said Calvert, in response to an inquiry from VICE.

Another Broadband for America member, the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals, said it had joined only to support broadband access in rural and underserved areas, not on issues relating to net neutrality or the classification of broadband as a utility. "We will reexamine this endorsement and make a determination whether to continue supporting the coalition should we find that the current policies they are proposing would undermine the original goal of greater access for all Americans," said Dave Pearson, president of the group, which represents rural hospitals in Texas as the name suggests.

Some directly say they disagree with Broadband for America's position on net neutrality.

Don Hollister, the executive director of the Ohio League of Conservation Voters, said he was unaware of his organization being listed as a Broadband for America member. After our inquiry, Hollister wrote to us to share a message he sent to Broadband for America:

"The Ohio League of Conservation Voters does not endorse your position on broadband. This is not a policy area that we take positions on. Why are we listed as a Broadband for America member? I am unaware of Ohio LCV taking any position on broadband issues and I have been Executive Director since 2011. The Ohio LCV is not a member of Broadband for America. Remove us from your listing of members."

Other groups we contacted were simply confused. "I'm not aware of them and I pay all the bills. I've never heard of Broadband for America," replied Keith Jackson, an accountant with the Spread Eagle Tavern & Inn, a cozy bed and breakfast in Ohio that is listed as a Broadband for America member.

There's more in the original article. But it's pretty straightforward: many of the named members either had no idea or thought they were signing up for something very, very different. And yet now they are "supporting" policies they either don't know about or don't support. But this is how things are done in the cynical corners of Washington DC. You get support in any way necessary, no matter how ridiculous.